Donít hold the wake just yet folks... Boeing and its acquired companies have built every human rated spacecraft in US history... Being selected for full and SNC for partial wouldnít be a bad thing. SpaceX will still go on to develop Dragon and Falcon will have more launches under its belt from cargo...

Dropping SpaceX would mean sending more money to Russia for either Soyuz launches or engines for Atlas. I think It would be more responsible to give SpaceX whatever funding is required to meet the equilibrium point on schedule acceleration vs additional Soyuz launches, while sending SNC enough funds to provide long term competition, to keep SpaceX's prices low.

Boeing has made it clear they will not maintain production capability without a steady stream of grease, which means they aren't very useful for exerting price pressure on SpaceX or SNC. Threatening to fire the team working on the project doesn't exactly evoke confidence in future support/ manufacturing flexibility.

It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.

Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.

Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.

It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.

Us "Old Space Guys" are very anxious for the status-quo to be completely turned on its head. The status-quo is to milk the government for every dime that they possibly can in order to enrich the bottom line in the name of maximizing profit. Back in the day the status-quo was to use government contracts as a secure source of business and to earn an honest profit. Over the years however it became "whatever the market will bear" in lieu of honest profit, and "old space corporations" lost their way as a result. The end result is that now "old space corporations" use government contracts as a secure source of business and rake the government coffers over the coals for every dime they can possibly get. Want proof? Until SpaceX came along American launch companies had essentially priced themselves right out of the commercial launch market and had become almost exclusively a USGov launch capability, sending hundreds of commercial launches to the Russians and Europeans. I've been in the thick of this government contract market for a very long time and have personally witnessed this paradigm change of "honest profit " mentality to "whatever the market will bear" mentality. It's sickening. I'm one of those old space guys and I would love to see the "status-quo" completely upset and I know I'm not alone.

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.

Who said anything about Boeing "going over the wall"? Certainly I didn't. Re-read what I said. I intimated that if their space-based efforts ultimately couldn't compete with new-space on price point that they would simply close their space business. Remember that the "space business" is only about 1% of Boeing's business. Should they close the doors on that it wouldn't even be a blip on the shareholder's stock price.

Logged

Chuck - DIRECT co-founderI started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.

Don't underestimate Boeing. They are extremely competitive on markets where you have actual competition. Of course they are having a hard time with smaller companies (like Embraer on regional jets). But they are the biggest and most successful company.They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010). Since they have multiple divisions, the can act as one or the other. Let them have a hard time with CST-100 and, if they lose, let them see how the ISS transition contract and SLS go on. If those are threatened by commercial operations, they'll bring in the innovators and commercial minded guys they do have within other divisions.

Boeing has and continues to be one of the most innovative aerospace companies on the planet wrt to both Commercial and Government (ie. Phantom Works) programs and services. But they are still a business. If they see too much downside risk to a project, they will not proceed. I would not expect them to. If they thought for one minute that CST would / could be utilized in a meaningful, profit generating way beyond NASA, they would invest more. After all, it costs Billions to launch programs such as 777, 787 etc. But there are billions more to be made.

Apparently, they see no such definitive upside to CST investments beyond NASA at this point. They are not of the "if we build it, they will come" mentality. I respect that. As I will also respect when NASA decides to down-select to Dragon & Dream Chaser.

The likelihood of Boeing going to the wall over competition from Space X in this area is laughable small, I imagine that Boeing should it wish too would probably be able to adjust its price point to compete as needs be with companies such as Space X.

Don't underestimate Boeing. They are extremely competitive on markets where you have actual competition. Of course they are having a hard time with smaller companies (like Embraer on regional jets). But they are the biggest and most successful company.They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010). Since they have multiple divisions, the can act as one or the other. Let them have a hard time with CST-100 and, if they lose, let them see how the ISS transition contract and SLS go on. If those are threatened by commercial operations, they'll bring in the innovators and commercial minded guys they do have within other divisions.

This is what I was getting at when they want to they can aggressively compete in market sectors. Their presence in military aviation for example hasn't been as great as maybe some other companies but all by reports they have turned their focus that way and I wouldn't bet against them in any sector they choose to enter with their maximum focus. It's hard to say I will admit how much corporate focus they have on the CST-100.

Yep. Boeing might be a good proxy to understand why fuzzy future is not a good strategy to leverage private capital and innovation. Should they see a strong and coordinated effort to develop a LEO station market, I'm pretty sure they would invest heavily. They were primes for both shuttle and the ISS, not to mention Apollo et al. But if NASA doesn't have a clear transition plan to full commercial services, with incentives to leveraging new markets, there's simply no reasonable expectancy for a profit. And if they have to stand down a decade or two until one is realized, they can afford to do since they'll have internal divisions still on the government side and go with whatever path does work commercially (like reusability).

Don't underestimate Boeing. ... They have that dual personality, expensive government contractor (think of IBM on its heyday), or big aggressive and innovating mega corporation (think of IBM in the 2000-2010).

Part of that is likely residual from the post-Cold War mergers. Boeing Classic was mostly commercial aircraft, though it also built bombers and tankers for the Pentagon and had the odd space contract like Saturn V S-IC. Hughes Space was satellites, often commercial but also big-buck government satellites. Rockwell (North American Aviation) was all Pentagon. McDonnell Douglas was mostly Pentagon (ex-McDonnell), though it also built commercial aircraft (ex-Douglas).

The launch vehicle business (all USAF and NASA at first) sprang from the Douglas side, interestingly enough. It was that McDonnell Douglas launch vehicle group then at Huntington Beach that originated Delta 4. A few years after the merger, Big New Boeing got rid of Delta 4 (to ULA) because it had turned into a big scandalous money loser (at the time, but ULA has turned it around). Not long after, Big New Boeing also dropped out of Sea Launch ownership. Boeing Classic seems to have won those board room arguments.

Which leaves Boeing in terms of space business with SLS and Space Station and maybe CST-100, along with the satellite work. Except for the satellites, this, as near as I can tell, came from the side of Boeing that can vaguely trace itself back, in spirit at least, to NAA/Rockwell (the S-II and Apollo CSM and Shuttle builder).

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

This thread has become increasingly annoying with many people spouting off what they think they know. In reality, they are just preaching to the "hey let's pretend we know what the hell we are talking about and tell others who is to blame and why this company is doing it all wrong".

Here are facts:

1. Price Point: No other company knows what the price point (or whatever you wish to call it) is of the other. If they did, or if anyone here did, you would be violating the law in several key places.

2. Cost is part of the equation. Not the whole equation. All will be competitive overall.

3. Claims of Boeing doing this or that and not being competitive, able to react to market pressure is complete nonsense. Look at the various business units products and earnings for the absolute proof. The idea that one or a group of people think they can say otherwise is only because they want it to fit with the narrative of what they want to believe and they want others to believe.

4. Market. Boeing knows something about this. If they do not win CCtCap for whatever reason, the business case goes away. They have closed the business case on NASA/ISS transportation. Anything else that comes along is great for Boeing as well as NASA but not necessary. So, like others will also find, the "vast commercial market" that special interests touted so heavily several years ago is not there (like many believed) and therefore a company is not going to invest in something they logically do not see a ROI on in the near future.

5. The SpaceX-worshipers can pretend to say "but Elon is different". Doesn't work that way. Money makes the world turn. SpaceX must be profitable to either re-invest in themselves or do the things they want to do. If not, they will go down in flames.

But SpaceX is different. There is a big difference between being profitable enough to keep going and being profitable enough to satisfy your stockholders.

No it is not. And stakeholders do not make the day to day business decisions of any company. But it is easy to try to say the "nebulous and greedy stockholders" are evil and holding Boeing or whoever back, rallying against innovation and progress in order to pad their bank accounts. It fits the narrative so many want to believe here.

If the Boeing CC case is closed why is it they were talking about switching to Falcon 9 because Atlas V is so expensive?

Certainly the Atlas V situation hasn't improved in the last few weeks. Have they decided to jump ship to get the costs down?

This is consistent with what has been discussed about CST-100 since the beginning.

Contrary to the belief that some like to tout around here, a viable, productive, innovative and competitive company (Boeing) will always pay attention and do what is necessary to cut overall costs and be able to respond to market changes.

That is good for Boeing and it is good for customers (current and prospective)

And "switching" is not what is happening. Boeing has been very consistent in that the vehicle will ultimately be "launch vehicle agnostic" to offer maximum flexibility across the operational life cycle that includes technical, cost and schedule factors.

Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.

Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.

Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.

Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.

Maybe Boeing don't like to make a big thing about their progress unlike certain others.

Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.

Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.

Agreed 100%.

My guess is SpaceX will be the only one doing an in flight abort test using the actual launch vehicle. They build it and it's cheaper than Atlas. The design certification can be met using another vehicle, ie Little Joe or Peacekeeper.

Why are we comparing Boeing and SpaceX? They are radically different companies with different histories and futures. We need both. Each have their place and each can/will do things the other can't/won't.

Anyways......anybody hear when / if Boeing is doing an actual pad or in-flight launch abort? As far as I can tell, Only SpaceX has publicly committed to both with approx timeframes. And SNC has only bought one Atlas V for an orbital test flight in 2016.

Agreed 100%.

My guess is SpaceX will be the only one doing an in flight abort test using the actual launch vehicle. They build it and it's cheaper than Atlas. The design certification can be met using another vehicle, ie Little Joe or Peacekeeper.

Sounds like it is funding dependent but Boeing wants to do an in-flight abort with the plan to "unzip" the Atlas V at transonic speeds.

Quote

If NASA selects Boeing for a development contract with sufficient funding, ULA will provide launch services for an autonomous orbital flight, a transonic autonomous abort test launch, and a crewed launch, all in 2015.

It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

While there is some truth to what you say, two key points to keep in mind:

1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.2) I significant driver for Boeing is NASA, not neccessarily Boeing. Boeing is used to workign with NASA and doing things NASA's way. That is why a lot of NASA people feel more comfortable with Boeing over SpaceX. NASA lists a requireemnt. Boeing says how much fault tolerance? Here is the massive analysis and documentation. SpaceX says why do you need that? This is good enough.

It's pretty obvious you Old Space guys don't like the prospect of the status-quo being disturbed.

Want to know why CST-100 on an Atlas is more expensive that Dragon on a Falcon? Simple. Because they (old space) have painted themselves into an expensive corner, thinking this was their sandbox. Over the years they revised their business models to be around this "whatever the market will bear" mentality and are no longer able to effectively react to the market pressure being put on them by the likes of SpaceX and others, some yet to come. Their challenge in the coming years is going to be just to survive in the space business long enough to find a way to actually compete on price point. Otherwise they will be forced to cede their position to "new space" and will no longer be in the space business at all. Personally I believe that necessity played a role in the large, multi-year block buy by ULA that is the subject of a different thread.

Status-quo? All us "old space" guys would love to see it gutted. Let's get back to the business models where a fair profit is king over the greed of whatever-the-market-will-bear.

While there is some truth to what you say, two key points to keep in mind:

1) Don't believe any of the pricing info you think you know, especially on Dragon+Falcon.2) I significant driver for Boeing is NASA, not neccessarily Boeing. Boeing is used to workign with NASA and doing things NASA's way. That is why a lot of NASA people feel more comfortable with Boeing over SpaceX. NASA lists a requireemnt. Boeing says how much fault tolerance? Here is the massive analysis and documentation. SpaceX says why do you need that? This is good enough.

Does the Astronaut Office get to go over the designs prior to contract award, or do they get brought in after selection?